I was told the following by a critic regarding the Roe v Wade overturning. It is a rather dumbfounding statement, but it represents the views of many, so I think should be addressed seriously:
You are basically requiring that I explain Newton’s Laws of Motion to you. I should not have to do that. An object standing still tends to remain standing still. An object moving tends to remain in motion. The Supreme Court has set itself in motion in a particular direction. It is moving the clock backwards. Unless it is stopped it will continue to move backwards. By removing women’s right to owning their bodies the Court has taken a dangerous step. Instead of adjudicating, it is legislating. It took upon itself a power the Constitution never gave it.
But now it has taken that step, Chief Justice Thomas has avowed to continue legislating, and by doing so, moving your nation backward. That means he intends to throw out minority right of all kind. He will not stop until he is impeached, or all minority rights have been repealed. He is a disgrace to all Americans, but more so a disgrace to his own race. If he gets his way he will make blacks slaves again, and women chattel. That is the way things were not that long ago, and that is the society he is espousing. The South is fighting the Civil War again, not on the battlefield, but through a power in the courts that does not legally exist.
When he thinks All men are created equal, he is thinking white males. After all, that is what the word “men” means, isn’t it? That is what it meant in 1776.
I could have quoted many public figures, those who say losing the unbridled “right” to end the life of another in the womb is so essential to all else in our society. They say losing that power is the beginning of the end of so much else and must be resisted with every fiber. The demagoguery has no end. I will note, however, that in July 2022, the average American voter apparently doesn’t agree:
Sixty-three percent say either inflation, gas prices, the economy or everyday bills/groceries is their family’s top concern (inflation and gas prices alone combined for 47%).
The next highest-ranking concern is abortion, which is the top issue for 5% of respondents, the fifth-highest ranking issue.
My critic, a Canadian resident, echoes the talking points of our Left leaning talking heads. So, let’s examine what this decision means along with his comments about Justice Thomas and the Declaration of Independence. The full discussion can be found here:
Return To Federalism
Prior to the Roe v Wade decision, each state decided the question of abortion themselves. Some allowed it and some didn’t. You are not a US citizen, so you may not have known. The dishonest media and politicians who speak today do know.
In 1973, nine justices changed the law, overrode the decisions of states banning abortion. They decided the issue for the entire country. In other words, the judiciary denied states the right to decide for themselves. The Supreme Court wrote the law; they violated the principle of separation of powers by assuming a legislative role. Prior to 1973, state legislatures, selected by voters in each state, made the decision. This is how democracy works in our country. It even has a name: federalism. The USA brand of federalism limits the power of the national government and leaves all rights not enumerated to the states.
Federalism is a mixed or compound mode of government that combines a general government (the central or “federal” government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial, or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system, dividing the powers between the two.
I don’t blame you if you were not aware of federalism. Many US citizens and residents don’t know either because much of our education system no longer teaches such principles, but instead indoctrinates children in progressive values like pride, diversity, uninhibited sexual freedom, and equity, things that won’t serve you well when you need to solve a real problem in a real job.
Think about what Roe v Wade meant. In 1973, nine justices (and nobody else) decided the issue for the entire country. In 2022, the decision returns to 50 state legislatures, far more than nine people are now involved in that decision. Which is more democratic? I am not asking which decision you like best (I am not satisfied either since abortion will remain in many states). I am asking which is better: nine justices or 168 million voters decide? If your state legislature doesn’t represent you well, you can vote them out and a new legislature can change the law. This is how a representative democracy works. You have one of those in your country too, so you ought to be familiar with this principle. In the US, you can even move to another state, one that represents your own view better. This is how federalism should work.
What if the court had said: we overrule Roe v Wade and we declare abortion is now illegal in all of the United States? The 1973 court decided the issue in this way, stripping the vote from citizens. You would have a point if Justice Alito and company had done the same as the prior court. However, this is the progressive mindset, not a conservative one.
Abortion is unfortunately, still a battleground issue, but I am glad the court returned to the fundamental Constitutional principle of federalism. It means a more difficult, more drawn out fight to end abortion, but it supports a principle which forms the basis of our common bond. Pro-lifers still seek to end abortion, but through the changing of hearts and minds.
Today, abortion is no longer a national issue; it is now a local issue. The court rightly said it is out of their purview to decide. Essentially, all they said was the prior court decided wrongly. The Roe v Wade decision was a blow to democracy and a usurpation of power by the court. Today’s court is undoing the prior mistake. Let the debate begin now. There is simply no other way to look at it, although I am sure you will continue to see it your way. Here is text from the Alito majority opinion:
“Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
Supreme Court Justices are unelected and serve for life. This insulates them from undue influence of the voters, allowing freedom in interpreting the law. Still, too often the court decides to stream the will of its own constituency. Judges shouldn’t have constituencies. A judge should not be considered a Republican or Democrat, but instead a fair arbiter of the law. Imagine a criminal law judge who rules based on his feelings about the person charged or injects his personal feelings about an established law. That is scary. The judge is to interpret the law and to apply it fairly, despite his personal feelings.
The three justices who voted to uphold Roe v Wade, see it your way. They like abortion; they think it is essential to good working order, so they voted to maintain the status quo. What did they base their dissent on? Substantive due process.
Substantive due process rights are those rights that are not specifically mentioned in any other part of the Constitution, but that The U.S. Supreme Court has said are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).).
Substantive due process is basically how lawyers’ allow substituting their own feelings and political biases while still claiming to interpret the law. The dissenting justices wrote 66 pages extolling the great value of abortion. Roe v Wade established a new Constitutional right, a right never mentioned in the document (abortion was a known thing in 1789). The dissenting justices argue abortion is a fundamental right afforded to women and therefore cannot be restricted by government, but there is no real discussion why this should be a Constitutional right. Their lack of logic doesn’t matter to folks like you. They are heroes because they argue abortion is good and necessary. From the dissenting opinion:
For half a century, Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), have protected the liberty and equality of women. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that the Constitution safeguards a woman’s right to decide for herself whether to bear a child. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that in the first stages of pregnancy, the government could not make that choice for women. The government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life: It could not determine what the woman’s future would be . . . Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.
They go on to say: “Today, the Court discards that balance. It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of.”
How does hyperbole that pregnant women have no rights whatsoever creep into official opinions? This is too bizarre a notion to even consider. The government has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of its citizens. The purpose of restrictive abortion laws is to protect children, not to strip women’s rights. More than 60 million children have been aborted since 1973. How about we balance the right of women to maintain their own future against the right of a child to live its life? Pro-choice advocates like you simply ignore the child altogether. You say the child has no rights and life is not yet present. You cannot win the argument unless you deny some basic biological truths.
When I married, I made a commitment, not simply a choice. My faith calls it a covenant, a sacred bound. Once married, I am no longer an autonomous being who can make decisions about my own life without impacting others. I have responsibility for my wife and children. I am legally bound by the vow I gave. A pregnant woman and father, through their actions, have assumed such responsibility as well. We can no longer separate the lives of mother and child.
The relevant choice was the one made before the woman became pregnant. Further, you pretend the pregnant woman’s decision only impacts herself. We all know that this is not true. Along with the child, the father, the family, and the community at large are impacted by the woman’s choice. Often, others force the “choice” upon her, so it may not even be her choice after all. Too many pregnant woman and more often than not fathers as well, want no responsibility for their actions. This is the failing of our culture. We need to hold each other to account or the house of cards will fall.
My critic’s comments about Justice Thomas demonstrate how the game is played. Progressives label those they disagree with: racist, sexist, Nazi, and so on. They seek to end debate by discrediting their opponents and questioning motivations. My critic plays the exact same game as the rest. I don’t allow such tactics.
Your comments about Justice Thomas do not warrant a full response. He wants to make blacks slaves and women chattel? This is laughable. It is an emotional response which has no basis in fact or logic. I dare you to prove your claim. You cannot do it. I am certain you cannot because it is utter nonsense. Thomas is our best justice, a great thinker, and someone who has earned respect after 30 years on the court.
Still, I want to know why you and every other progressive hate black conservatives like Clarence Thomas, but vilify others who challenge black liberal leaders? During the 2012 presidential election, I was reliably told by our national media that Alabama, Mississippi, and various other states were racist for voting overwhelmingly against Barrack Obama. What nonsense. We have two choices and some people decide not to vote for one of them and this makes them racist? By this logic, Obama should have won 100% of the vote to prove none of us are racist. Maybe some folks just thought the other guy was better–or not as awful as Obama? This kind of lopsided result happens in various states in every single election! This tactic is used to ascribe motivation only when convenient.
Let’s turn the tables. Are you racist for hating Thomas and inventing stories you have zero proof of? Such provocative charges should come with evidence, but you provided none. I will keep saying this is nonsense until you provide evidence. I am certain you can’t.
If not voting for President Obama is all it takes to prove conservatives are racist, then you also must be racist for your hatred of Thomas and your unfounded claims. That’s logical consistency.
Declaration of Independence
My critic obliquely refers to Jefferson’s line in the Declaration of Independence: “all men are created equal”. He takes a 21st century perspective, completely unknown to our founding fathers, and applies our thinking to their time. It just doesn’t work that way.
The Declaration of Independence put forward a radical concept for its a time, a concept which has spread around the world and has been built upon further even within the US itself. Freedom seekers such as Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King believed in and fought to fulfill the promise of “all men are created equal”, a promise undermined by others of their day (always undermined Democrats, mind you). The promise of these words was a beacon of hope for them and still for us.
Jefferson was a conflicted figure with regard to the rights of black slaves. His actions with regard to slavery were indeed suspect, but his words and the promise they gave to his generation and countless others that followed are not suspect. We honor Jefferson not for being a slave holder, but for championing “all men are created equal”. It has reached its fulfillment today.
Do we denigrate MLK for being adulterer or do we instead honor him for destroying a racist system? All of us would fail the test under such harsh scrutiny. All of us are a mixture of good and bad, but still we honor the good we have accomplished.
Jefferson himself even condemned the practice of slavery under King George, but these words were struck from the Declaration; we might have remained British colonies otherwise. Many founding fathers tried to end slavery 250 years ago. You know how the story turns out, but you think you would have been done more yourself during that time. Most people are sheep, so I seriously doubt it. You follow the crowd today as shown above.
Jefferson’s words helped make Western Civilization great. Now, you attack the very thing that made us great. Such thought spells the end of our great civilization.
In 1857, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to affirm the principle “all men are created equal”, but they declined. In the Dred Scott decision, justices invented a right of slave owners to retain their property, just as the 1973 court invented a right to abortion. The court, and our nation as a whole, failed both times, but this does not mean our entire system and our principles as espoused at our founding are bad. A bloody four-year civil war and three Constitutional amendments fixed what the Taney court wrongly decided in 1857. Similarly, in 2022, six justices finally reversed the egregious error of the Burger court 50 years earlier.
I waited for an explanation of how I am wrong, what key points I had missed, but received only a dismissive reply about being “too blind to see”, so I pushed once more:
I listen to Joe Biden’s press secretary Jean-Pierre use the same tactic as you when asked a question she doesn’t have an answer for. Straightforward questions get non-answers or she just refuses to answer the uncomfortable questions.
Hypocrisy is rampant in politics today. Progressives, including you, all hate Justice Thomas, but neither you nor they can explain why we should hate him (or his policies) and why he is a disgrace to his race (your words, not mine).
I still await a response. It is understandable that I have not received one. There is no good one to be had. Only total submission to emotional, logical fallacies will satisfy my critic and his cohorts.
My critic raised a story of an abused 10-year who became pregnant. He asked: Am I so rigid I would “force” a 10-year-old to give birth? The pro-choice crowd often raises the extreme case, demands we compromise on rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but still holds firm this be a mother’s choice in all other cases.
I don’t know if a 10-year should have a baby. That’s an exceedingly rare medical situation I cannot speak to. I would defer to a doctor. Still, the overwhelming majority of abortions are done for reasons far more suspect. I have addressed the rape and incest question previously. Below are experts thoughts regarding the “life of the mother” argument.
Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said the following:
In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. . . . If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarean section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature and perhaps immature depending on the length of gestation. Because it has suddenly been taken out of the protective womb, it may encounter threats to its survival. The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.
Abortion advocate Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D. admitted the following:
Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.
Abortionist Don Sloan, M.D. said as well:
With diseases like lupus, multiple sclerosis, even breast cancer, the chance that pregnancy will make the disease worse is no greater than the chance that the disease will either stay the same or improve. And medical technology has advanced to a point where even women with diabetes and kidney disease can be seen through a pregnancy safely by a doctor who knows what he or she is doing. We’ve come a long way since my mother’s time. . . The idea of abortion to save the mother’s life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure — but medically speaking, it probably doesn’t exist. It’s a real stretch of our thinking.
Here is one final interesting story. My critic seems hung up on the notion we want to punish and prosecute women for abortions and even such things as miscarriage and ectopic pregnancies. I don’t want to punish women have abortions or are caught up in these other situations. This is just another canard used to discredit us.
“Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn’t the same thing as getting an abortion,” Planned Parenthood says on its website . .. The medical procedures for abortions are not the same as the medical procedures for an ectopic pregnancy.
Facts are just facts. They don’t care about your feelings.
For more on my posts on the issue of life: https://seek-the-truth.com/category/life/
2 thoughts on “Overturning Roe v Wade: a Return to Federalism and Democracy”